Please check my math on this one...

You could make the argument that it's carrying the firearm that is equivalent to driving a car, rather than firing the weapon.

 

You could, but then you'd have to explain why there is a difference between possession of a controlled substance and use of that substance.

 

Firearm: Can own, carry, use.
Drugs: Can own, carry, use.

The comparison was to a car. Your comment is a bit of a red herring anyway.

 

My point seems to have gone completely over your head, so I will attempt to explain:
I never claimed that it was impossible to own, carry or use drugs. I pointed out that drug possession (a crime you may be charged with for carrying drugs) is different to the charges you might face if you are apprehended using drugs... This illustrates that there is a legal differentiation between "carrying" and "using".

A person with a phone in their pocket is not generally considered to be "using" the phone. If someone asked to use your firearm (or phone, or keys, or whatever), you would expect them to do something other than just carry it around.

Do you now understand the correlation?

 

I'm not arguing your point. The point you tried to make is a red herring that changes the comparison. The poster compared fireing a firearm to driving a car. He didn't compare to drugs. A car can only be either owned or driven (used). There is no "carrying". The car carries you. That's why my point about making an argument that the carrying of a firearm could be the same as actual driving.

I should have included car in my post:

Firearm: Can own, carry, use.
Drugs: Can own, carry, use.
Car: Can own, use.

If the comparision is firearm to drugs then you can make a tit for tat comparision. But with a car you can't. Bringing drugs into it where you can make the tit for tat comparision and saying that I have to make a differentiation between carry and use when related to a car argues for only half the comparision - the gun. The same differentiation can't be made for the car. Ergo there is no point to making such a differentiation when comparing firearms and cars unless you make carrying the firearm as equivalent to use (driving) of the car or maybe meld carrying and use as equivalent to driving. For firearms and drugs you can make such a differentiation.

 

Ok, in order to claim that carrying a gun is "using" it, then it would be necessary to explain how the firearm is being employed or put into service while untouched in a holster. What function is it fulfilling in such a capacity?
Just to be fair, I wouldn't say that a person who stores stuff in the trunk of a car they never drive is "using" the car in the standard sense either...